特首收禮小事一樁 延宕不決觀感事大

<轉載自2015年11月12日 明報 社評>

立法會辯論「將《防止賄賂條例》第3條及第8條的適用範圍擴大至行政長官」，雖然議案在目前的立法會結構未獲通過，但是這個議題延宕下去，對政府並無任何好處，因為公衆無法理解特首位高權重，為何在索取收受利益的規管卻不如公務員？昨日，滔滔雄辯如政務司長林鄭月娥就此都未能提出使人信服的理據。政府應該加緊處理此事，使特首在索取收受利益受到合適規管，讓市民對特首和政府的廉潔觀感，不再受到不必要影響。

特首收禮確有特權 多年未見解決苗頭

防賄例在2008年修訂之時，已經把特首豁免於第3條和第8條，即是這兩個條文對特首不適用，當時政府提出涉及憲制架構，不過一直語焉不詳。2012年，前任特首曾蔭權被揭發接受富豪款待，使公衆重新關注防賄例與特首的關係，當時曾蔭權委任前任大法官李國能領導獨立委員會，研究特首和政治任命官員收受利益的規管和提出建議；委員會其後發表報告書，有關特首部分，建議修訂條例，讓整條《防止賄賂條例》都適用於特首，另外，認為特首收取禮品應該申報和有審批機制，建議由終院首席法官或終院首席法官加立法會主席，籌組一個有3名成員的獨立委員會，邀請獨立及具公信力社會人士出任成員，負責審核特首的收禮申請，經委員會批准收受的利益，須詳列於可供公眾查閱的資料冊。

報告發表時，梁振英已經當選特首，當時他以候任特首身分表明，「我對這個《報告書》是表示歡迎的，我會認真地去考慮這份《報告書》所作的建議，以及在上任之後盡快和嚴格地落實」。昨日，林鄭月娥表明這個仍然是行政長官和特區政府的立場，並無改變，云云。不過，3年半過去了，外間不知道政府就此事做過什麼工作，即使立場真箇未變，但是空有立場，事態卻毫無寸進，難免使人猜測政府有其他考慮，特別是香港事務凡事政治化，反對陣營見縫插針，操作「特首收禮無王管」肯定是絕佳議題。可以說，此事再獲炒作空間，政府也有責任。

政府和建制陣營在辯論中對反對陣營語多指摘，只是無論怎樣質疑提出議案的動機和目的，都不能解答一個事實，就是：若防賄例對公職人員全面規管，則對特首就不是全面規管，因為第3條及第8條對特首不適用；特首與其他公職人員相比，權力更大，更容易以權謀私，對特首的規管理應更嚴格，現在特首索取收受利益卻不受監管，無論從任何角度都很難說安排合理。

林鄭月娥在辯論中，一再表示特首仍受防賄例第4條、第5條和第10條規管，藉此指什麼特首淩駕法律、「無王管」的指控都與事實不符。不過，即使如此，特首少受防賄例規管的事實，當局仍然無法否認。在公衆層面，看到防賄例全面規管下屬，對最高層上司的監管卻打折扣，防賄例是否一視同仁？是否貫徹法律面前、人人平等的精神？自然產生疑問。鑑於此事觸及法治精神的核心價值，只要一日不匡正，這個議題仍然會有生命力，因為事態背離了公衆的同理心，公衆都不明白特首索取收受利益為什麼會得到特別對待。

中央應再特事特辦 授權香港自行處理

今次辯論，政府和建制陣營同時打出「憲制牌」，提出若把整條防賄例適用於特首以及監管特首收受利益，涉及《基本法》特區政治體制及特首在特區的憲制地位，需要通盤考慮，云云。按憲制架構，特首地位超然難以爭辯，即使如此，「地位超然」不能確保特首必然廉潔奉公、盡忠職守，最理想做法是設立一套制度，規限特首按制度運行，才可壓制個人歪念和防止脫軌。

李國能領導的委員會建議籌組獨立委員會，負責審核特首的收禮申請等事宜，其實就是使特首收禮制度化。不過，這個安排可看成特首要向委員會負責。按《基本法》規定，特首只向兩方面負責，就是中央和特區，然則委員會的角色權能與此是否有牴觸，確實需要研究。其實，是否接受李國能的建議，基本上是一念之間。現行安排使特首陷於「收禮特權」景況，任何人坐上這個位置，都百辭莫辯；而處理香港事務，一直有一條就是「特事特辦」，只要有助於特首工作、有助於消除港人疑慮、有助於夯實香港的廉潔社會和法治精神，中央都應該就此再一次特事特辦。

從「一國兩制」審視特首收禮問題，大者可以涉及主權不容侵犯，小者則可以在與原則並無根本牴觸情況下，授權香港特區自行處理。例如李國能委員會的建議，只要中央授權獨立委員會審核處理特首收受禮品等事宜，即是代中央執行有關工作，而且權責分明，不致出現與特首權責之間的混淆，則所謂「負責」問題就解決了。其實，大至終審權也可給予香港特區，處理特首收禮只是芝麻綠豆小事，根本不值得中央費神。現任特首梁振英也應該積極推動此事，徹底解決這個問題。

The amendment of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance

Yesterday the Legislative Council debated whether to extend Sections 3 and 8 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance to cover the Chief Executive (CE). Because of the structure of the Legislative Council, the motion was not adopted. But it will not be advantageous to the government if the issue remains unresolved.

When the Ordinance was amended in 2008, the CE was made exempt from the two sections. The government said that this arrangement had to do with the constitutional structure, but it did not explain it in detail. In 2012, Donald Tsang, the then Chief Executive, was found to have accepted hospitality from a tycoon. That put the relationship between the Ordinance and the Chief Executive under the spotlight. Tsang appointed Andrew Li, the former Chief Justice, to lead an independent commission, tasking him with investigating and making suggestions about the regulation of the CE's and politically appointed officials' acceptance of benefits. A report was published subsequently, and it was suggested, in the section concerning the Chief Executive, that the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance be amended so that the whole Ordinance would cover the Chief Executive. The report also proposed the establishment of a mechanism for the declaration and examination of the gifts received by the CE. It was suggested that the Chief Justice of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (or the Chief Justice and the Legco President) set up a 3-member independent commission and invite independent individuals with a good reputation to sit on the commission and examine the applications for gift reception made by the CE. Those benefits approved by the commission should be listed in detail in a booklet accessible to the public.

Leung Chun-ying had already been elected Chief Executive when the report was published. He said in his capacity as Chief Executive-elect, "I welcome the publication of the report. I will earnestly consider its suggestions and implement them strictly as soon as I am sworn in." Yesterday, Carrie Lam maintained that the Chief Executive and the government had not changed their stance on the matter. But three and a half years have passed since Leung made the promise, and the public has no idea what the government has done. Even if the government has not changed its stance, it has failed to make any progress on the matter, making the public suspect that the government has an axe to grind. This is especially so in a city that tends to politicise everything. Hong Kong's opposition, bent on attacking the government at every opportunity, has made an issue of the matter, claiming that the system has allowed the Chief Executive to accept gifts as he pleases. It can be said that the government itself is to blame now that the issue is being blown out of proportion.

In yesterday's debates, the government and the pro-establishment camp played up the constitutional aspect of the matter. They claimed that if the whole Ordinance was so amended as to cover the Chief Executive and if the CE's acceptance of benefits was regulated, the political system of the SAR and the constitutional status of the CE, as stipulated in the Basic Law, would be affected. The matter had to be considered as a whole, they said.

We are convinced that we should look at the matter from the perspective of the "One country, two systems" policy. The policy has to do with some big issues, which include the inviolability of the sovereignty. But it also authorises the SAR government to handle smaller issues as long as they do not come into conflict with the principles of the policy. In fact, the SAR has been given the power of final adjudication, which is no small matter. How the CE's acceptance of gifts should be handled is an issue too trivial for the central government. Leung Chun-ying, the incumbent Chief Executive, should work proactively and try to resolve the matter once and for all.

特首收禮小事一樁 延宕不決觀感事大

立法會辯論「將《防止賄賂條例》第3條及第8條的適用範圍擴大至行政長官」，雖然議案在目前的立法會結構未獲通過，但是這個議題延宕下去，對政府並無任何好處。

防賄例在2008年修訂之時，已經把特首豁免於第3條和第8條，即是這兩個條文對特首不適用，當時政府提出涉及憲制架構，不過一直語焉不詳。2012年，前任特首曾蔭權被揭發接受富豪款待，使公衆重新關注防賄例與特首的關係，當時曾蔭權委任前任大法官李國能領導獨立委員會，研究特首和政治任命官員收受利益的規管和提出建議；委員會其後發表報告書，有關特首部分，建議修訂條例，讓整條《防止賄賂條例》都適用於特首，另外，認為特首收取禮品應該申報和有審批機制，建議由終院首席法官或終院首席法官加立法會主席，籌組一個有3名成員的獨立委員會，邀請獨立及具公信力社會人士出任成員，負責審核特首的收禮申請，經委員會批准收受的利益，須詳列於可供公眾查閱的資料冊。

報告發表時，梁振英已經當選特首，當時他以候任特首身分表明，「我對這個《報告書》是表示歡迎的，我會認真地去考慮這份《報告書》所作的建議，以及在上任之後盡快和嚴格地落實」。昨日，林鄭月娥表明這個仍然是行政長官和特區政府的立場，並無改變，云云。不過，3年半過去了，外間不知道政府就此事做過什麼工作，即使立場真箇未變，但是空有立場，事態卻毫無寸進，難免使人猜測政府有其他考慮，特別是香港事務凡事政治化，反對陣營見縫插針，操作「特首收禮無王管」肯定是絕佳議題。可以說，此事再獲炒作空間，政府也有責任。

今次辯論，政府和建制陣營同時打出「憲制牌」，提出若把整條防賄例適用於特首以及監管特首收受利益，涉及《基本法》特區政治體制及特首在特區的憲制地位，需要通盤考慮，云云。

從「一國兩制」審視特首收禮問題，大者可以涉及主權不容侵犯，小者則可以在與原則並無根本牴觸情况下，授權香港特區自行處理。其實，大至終審權也可給予香港特區，處理特首收禮只是芝麻綠豆小事，根本不值得中央費神。現任特首梁振英也應該積極推動此事，徹底解決這個問題。